Yessis n Teryel

Amuggar n Teqbayliyin - Forum des femmes kabyles


    Des lois, des presidents, de la constitution... aux USA.

    Partagez

    windejjatmeziant

    Nombre de messages : 64
    Date d'inscription : 01/06/2007
    24102007

    Des lois, des presidents, de la constitution... aux USA.

    Message par windejjatmeziant

    Azul,
    Je vous livre ce texte for interessant ecrit par un journaliste connu pour ses tendances republicaines (tres biaisees), qui decrit un debat entre un congressman republicain (connu pour son "conservatisme", leader du mvt qui a coute' cher a la culotte du President clinton), et le conseiller juridique du President Bush qui a legalement justifie' la mise sous ecoute de toutes les conversations telephoniques des americains, une atteinte flagrante au droit individuel de l americain et uen entrave grave a la constitution. Dans ce debat le congressman defend la "sacralite" de ce droit. L avocat invoque le pouvoir des "forces majeurs" pour le justifier au nom de la surete de l etat... mais a duree limitee ( a contraster a l etat d urgence qui regne depuis 92 dans un pays gere par les voyoux de el mouradia).
    J ai ete surpris qu un tel debat puisse avoir lieu avec autant de clairvoyance du cote republicain. Il y a de quoi surtout avec ce qui se passe ici depuis l an 2000 et surtout depuis septembre 2001... Cet article me rappelle justement l esprit fondateur de cette grande nation. Une pensee que j espere beaucoup d entre nous kabyles auraient a mediter a l oree de l instauration d une kabylie autonome, sinon independante, chose a laquelle je me souscris entierement.

    Bonne lecture... s il y a des passages qui sont difficiles a comprendre, j essayerai autant que possible de les traduire quand c est possible.. je m adresse aux francophones dont l anglais peut etre boiteux :-)

    eff Jacoby
    The scope of federal power








    By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | October 24, 2007



    "DO WE REALLY want presidents who sign laws that they think are unconstitutional?"


    It was a debate over the Bush administration's conduct in the war on
    terrorism. The discussion had turned to the president's heavy reliance
    on "signing statements"
    - written interpretations by President Bush of bills he has signed into
    law, frequently including the claim that one or more sections of the
    new law are unconstitutional and can therefore be ignored. One of the
    speakers, a critic of the administration's aggressive efforts since
    Sept. 11, 2001, to expand presidential power, was scornful.
    "This
    notion that presidents in our system of government don't have to carry
    out laws authorized by Congress is absolutely preposterous," the
    speaker said. "If that were the case - if Congress's laws are merely
    advisory - why would you need a veto?" A president who disapproves of a
    bill should say so in a veto message - that's why the Constitution
    gives him veto power. Bush's hundreds of signing statements are an
    "open power grab" that Americans should find intolerable. "We ought to
    be adamantly opposed to any claim that the president doesn't have to
    abide by laws that Congress has passed and he has signed."
    That
    may sound like Senator Hillary Clinton, who denounces the Bush
    administration's "concerted effort . . . to create a more powerful
    executive at the expense of both branches of government and of the
    American people" and promises to sharply roll back the use of signing statements if she becomes president.
    But the speaker wasn't Clinton, nor any other liberal or Democrat. It was former Georgia congressman Bob Barr,
    a staunch conservative best known for his leading role in the 1999
    impeachment of Bill Clinton. An outspoken defender of privacy rights
    and other civil liberties, Barr has long decried what he calls the
    "frightening erosion" of constitutional protections under Bush. At a
    forum hosted by the Boston chapter of the Federalist Society, he was debating another staunch conservative: John Yoo,
    a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, and a
    former Justice Department official whose thinking strongly influenced
    the administration's claims of presidential power after Sept. 11.
    In
    a vivid illustration of the clash of ideas roiling the right these
    days, the two had come to tangle over the Terrorist Surveillance
    Program, the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of
    phone calls and e-mails into and out of the United States as part of
    the effort to defeat Al-Qaeda. Yoo acknowledged that the eavesdropping
    seems inconsistent with the federal statute that ordinarily requires a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before such domestic spying can occur.But
    these aren't ordinary times, Yoo emphasized. The purpose of the
    Terrorist Surveillance Program is "to protect national security in
    wartime - and historically warrants haven't been required to conduct
    electronic surveillance of the enemy during wartime." A president is
    not obliged to unquestioningly obey every act of Congress - especially
    not if one impinges on his constitutional authority as
    commander-in-chief.
    Covert intelligence falls well within that
    authority, he argued, and presidents have long ordered electronic
    surveillance without regard to congressional or judicial strictures.
    Long before Pearl Harbor, for example, President Franklin Roosevelt
    "ordered the electronic surveillance of every communication in the
    country, regardless of whether it was international or not, so that the
    FBI could try to find Nazi saboteurs." FDR's order went far beyond
    anything Bush has done, and did so "even though a Supreme Court
    decision and a federal statute on the books at the time prohibited
    electronic surveillance of any kind without a judicial warrant."
    Barr
    was having none of it. Yoo's argument, he said, amounts to a claim that
    the three branches of the federal government are equal, but one is more
    equal than others - and that way lies the loss of freedom. "Do we want
    to live in a society where we know that any time we pick up the phone
    and call somebody overseas . . . the government may be listening in?
    That's the fundamental problem - what kind of society do we want to
    live in?"
    The bottom line, of course, is that there is no bottom
    line. Disputes over the proper scope of federal power, and the
    deference to which each branch is entitled, and the balance between
    national security and civil liberty, have been a feature of American
    life from the start. The struggle for political equilibrium is built
    into our democratic architecture.The debates began long before
    Bush arrived; they'll continue after he leaves. We should welcome them
    as signs not just of factiousness, but of strength: Americans argue
    about fundamental freedoms because Americans are fundamentally free.
    Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.
    Partager cet article sur : diggdeliciousredditstumbleuponslashdotyahoogooglelive

    Aucun commentaire.


      La date/heure actuelle est Lun 18 Juin - 13:31